Ontario Review Board
Re: Gregory Joseph Nafziger
ORB File No: 8657
Hearing held on: Wednesday, January 28, 2026
Place of hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care 401 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. B. Bigelow Members: Dr. J. M. Bradford Dr. L. O. Lightfoot Ms. K. Tomaszewski Ms. B. Little
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Gregory J. Nafziger Counsel: Mr. W. Glover
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. K. Dalrymple
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated February 19, 2026)
Introduction:
[1]. On October 22, 2024, Gregory Nafziger was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on two counts of criminal harassment, failure to comply with release order and uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”). Mr. Nafziger is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“the ORB” or “the Board”) dated February 6, 2025 (as amended) detaining him at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care (the “Hospital”) with privileges including: to enter the communities of Elgin and Middlesex Counties, indirectly supervised on an approved itinerary; to enter the community of Southwestern Ontario, accompanied by staff or delegate or person approved by the person in charge, for the sole purpose of facilitating contact with the accused’s mother; and to attend a drug and alcohol rehabilitation treatment program in the province of Ontario.
[2]. On January 28, 2026, the Board convened to conduct a hearing at the Hospital to review this Disposition. Mr. Nafziger was present at the hearing and represented by his counsel, Mr. W. Glover.
[3]. A Hospital Report dated December 5, 2025, was received by the panel and entered as Exhibit 1 at the hearing.
[4]. A Victim Impact Statement dated January 21, 2026, was entered as Exhibit 2. The Board advised all parties that it was aware of and intended to apply the procedure approved by the Court of Appeal in the decision of Klem 2016 ONCA 119. As such, the Board would only take into consideration those parts of the Victim Impact Statement that complied with the provisions of the Criminal Code. On this basis, all parties consented to the admissibility of the Victim Impact Statement.
[5]. The victim attended and observed the hearing via zoom videoconferencing.
[6]. At issue in this hearing is whether Mr. Nafziger is a significant threat to the safety of the public, as that term is defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code. If so, then the necessary and appropriate Disposition to manage his risk and his care must be determined, bearing in mind the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
[7]. For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before it, the Board concluded that Mr. Nafziger represents a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board further concluded that his risk can be properly managed with a detention disposition order maintaining him at the Southwest Centre, on the terms and conditions set out in our formal Disposition. The most liberal privilege accorded to Mr. Nafziger in the Disposition, is that he be permitted to live in the community of Elgin or Middlesex County in accommodation approved by the person in charge of the Southwest Centre, and that while living in the community he must report to the Hospital not less than four times per month. Various passes are included for access to the community of Southwestern Ontario. All passes exclude the City of Stratford.
[8]. Mr. Nafziger continues to be required to abstain absolutely from drugs and alcohol and other intoxicants, as well to submit samples of urine and/or breath to the person in charge. The Board also ordered that Mr. Nafziger refrain from having in his possession any firearm, ammunition or the like and a number of terms enjoining him from contact or communication with the victim of the index offence or her child with Mr. Nafziger. The Board also allowed Mr. Nafziger to attend and participate in a drug and alcohol rehabilitation program in the Province of Ontario.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:
[9]. Mr. Nafziger is diagnosed with Bipolar 1 Disorder with Psychotic Features and Substance Use Disorder (in remission, in a controlled environment).
Index Offences:
[10]. The following index offence information was excerpted from pages 2-4 of the Hospital Report:
- Criminal Harassment: engage in threatening conduct s. 264(2) (d) CCC
On September 2, 2023, at approximately 1:00 a.m., [the victim] contacted the Perth County Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) to report online harassment by her excommon-law partner, Mr. Gregory Joseph Nafziger. Mr. Nafziger had posted defamatory messages online, specifically naming [the victim]. He was charged with two counts of Criminal Harassment and one count of Harassing Communications, with [name redacted] being the victim in all three incidents. Mr. Nafziger is currently under court-ordered conditions to have no communication, direct or indirect, with [the victim] and is prohibited from attending any place where he knows she lives, works, or frequents. They share two children together, and a Family Court Order is currently in place.
Details of the Incident
On September 2, 2023, at approximately 1:00 a.m., Mr. Nafziger posted on his Facebook page under the name "Gregory Joseph Nafziger," alleging that "JLKB, formerly JJ," was involved in watching child pornography and allowing adults to engage in sexual activities with a minor, specifically his son [name redacted] and her daughter. Mr. Nafziger also claimed that [the victim] was HIV positive. Later, Mr. Nafziger clarified that "JLKB" referred to [name of victim] and "JJ" referred to [the victim’s] maiden name.
Mr. Nafziger used Facebook to publish defamatory libel with the intent for it to be read or seen on the internet, causing others to believe it to be true. This act of publishing libel has caused [the victim], her son, and her daughter to live in fear for their safety. Over the past two years, [the victim] has reported multiple incidents to the police where Mr. Nafziger used social media to publish libel. She has observed a steady escalation in the violence and threatening nature of his behavior. [The victim]is concerned that Mr. Nafziger will retaliate against her and may attempt to attend her residence. [The victim] operates a daycare out of her home, and she believes that the Facebook posts are negatively impacting her business and the safety of the children in her care.
- – 4. Failure to comply with Release order s. 145(5)(a) CCC, Criminal Harassment: repeatedly communicate/engage in threatening conduct s. 264(2)(d) CCC and Uttering Threats: to cause death or bodily harm s. 264.1(1)(a) CCC
On October 25, 2023, Perth County OPP were dispatched to [an address] in response to a report from [the victim], who had received death threats from her ex-partner, Mr. Nafziger. [The victim] showed police text messages sent by Mr. Nafziger, which led officers to form grounds for the following charges:
Failure to Comply with a Release Order: Mr. Nafziger is currently under a release order from the Ontario Court of Justice dated September 9, 2023, in the City of Stratford. The order includes the condition that Mr. Nafziger must not contact or communicate with [the victim]. Despite this, he sent her multiple messages, thereby failing to comply with the order.
Criminal Harassment: The messages sent by Mr. Nafziger were reckless, excessive, and caused [the victim] to fear for her safety. The communication was persistent and occurred even while police were present, leading to the charge of criminal harassment.
Uttering Threats: In the text messages, Mr. Nafziger repeatedly threatened [the victim’s] life, stating that she would die that night and that he would not be arrested before her death. These threats were explicit, lewd, and referenced sexual offenses…which further heightened the fear and distress experienced by [the victim].
Circumstances Prior to the Index Offence:
[11]. The Hospital Report set out the circumstances prior to the index offence from Mr. Nafziger’s self-report. They are not repeated in detail, but the following passages are relevant:
“Mr. Nafziger was asked to recall the time around the index offences…[He] stated that he became increasingly concerned for his son's safety and well-being around September 2, 2023, approximately three months before the incident in question…after hearing from friends that his son's mother was dating a man rumored to be a pedophile. He explained that this, combined with the mother's history of physical abuse toward her other child, led him to feel deeply anxious and protective.
Mr. Nafziger disclosed that he began using crack cocaine heavily around July or August 2023, in addition to drinking alcohol and consuming large amounts of cannabis edibles. His substance use escalated…after he received an email from the Crown Attorney at the end of August, stating that his diversion program was being canceled and he would have to go to trial without a lawyer. He described his drug use to cope with the overwhelming stress and fear he was experiencing.
Mr. Nafziger mentioned that during this period, his daily routine started to deteriorate. He had been meeting regularly with various support workers and attending the gym, but these activities diminished as his substance use intensified. He shared that he began to isolate himself, driven by growing paranoia and anxiety, especially concerning his son's safety.
When discussing the messages he sent on October 25, 2023, Mr. Nafziger…stated that on the night he sent the messages, he was in a heightened state of paranoia and distress. He had been using crack cocaine and alcohol heavily that day, and his mental state was significantly impaired. He described his mindset as, “I felt like I was losing control, and I was convinced that something bad was going to happen to my son if I didn’t act” and “at that moment, I wasn’t thinking about the consequences. I wasn’t thinking about whether it was right or wrong. I was only thinking about my son and making sure he was safe.”
Background Information:
[12]. The background information which follows, including the psychiatric and substance use history, is taken from the Board’s latest Reasons for Disposition dated March 31, 2025. This information is included to provide the context for both Mr. Nafziger’s progress this reporting period, and the Board’s decisions on the issues before it.
[13]. Educationally, Mr. Nafziger was recognized as gifted and did well at school, notwithstanding reported difficulty with hyperactivity, attention and concentration. According to his mother, Mr. Nafziger tended to seek attention and be talkative, which sometimes led to conflicts with teachers and peers. In high school, he achieved grades in the 80s and 90s despite some interpersonal difficulties with authority figures and significant absenteeism. His university experience was characterized by personal challenges, including the death of his grandfather to whom he was close. He found his program to be difficult and had a hard time keeping up, thus extending the period of time it would normally have taken to finish his degree. He completed a bioengineering degree in Guelph, graduating in 2005.
[14]. Following his graduation from university, Mr. Nafziger worked in real estate, eventually obtaining his real estate license and becoming a professional realtor. He worked in real estate for 17 years. Mr. Nafziger was successful in his career, achieving a number of awards, but he struggled at times with the demands of being self-employed. He was emotionally impacted by his grandmother's death in 2009, which led to increased use of alcohol and drugs. After selling his house and accumulating around $200,000 in savings, he decided to retire in 2021. Prior to his arrest on the index offences, he was living in London and had no source of income.
Psychiatric History:
[15]. Mr. Nafziger had a trauma history in childhood (sexual assault) and was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in his early 30s. According to his mother, he began experiencing mood swings in 2013, potentially linked to substance abuse, as well as instances of excessive spending, risky driving behaviours and periods of high energy which were often associated with his professional activities in real estate sales.
[16]. Mr. Nafziger’s mental health has worsened since 2020, with possible contributing factors being ADHD and substance use. His mental health difficulties led to problems in interpersonal relationships, including with the victim of the index offences. His erratic behaviour also affected his son, especially during periods of heightened paranoia and instability. Mr. Nafziger had a tendency to blame others for his circumstances. He has a history of failure to remain adherent to medication, treatment and follow-up.
[17]. Mr. Nafziger met the diagnostic criteria for a number of psychiatric conditions including ADHD (predominantly inattentive presentation, onset prior to age 12), post-traumatic stress disorder (currently in remission; onset in mid to late 20s), alcohol use disorder (currently in remission in a controlled setting, onset in early 20s, previously severe), a stimulant use disorder (cocaine, currently in remission due to controlled environment, onset in early 20s, previously severe). Mr. Nafziger was also assessed to determine if he met the criteria for a personality disorder. While he did not reach the threshold for formal diagnoses, he did endorse several traits of narcissistic personality disorder, histrionic personality disorder and borderline personality disorder.
[18]. It was the NCR assessors’ opinion that Mr. Nafziger primarily suffered from bipolar I disorder with psychotic features, currently in a manic episode, due to his elevated mood and psychosis persisting in the absence of substance use.
[19]. Mr. Nafziger was admitted to the Southwest Centre’s assessment unit on August 2, 2024, under the care of Dr. Ajay Prakash. Following his admission, his mental status was observed to be unstable, and he presented with ongoing symptoms of mental illness. He was observed responding to unseen stimuli and his mood often fluctuated. He demonstrated pressured speech, either making jokes or crying during conversations. His thought process was circumstantial and tangential. He presented with symptoms suggestive of mania and demonstrated some irritability when his needs were not met according to his timeline. He also exhibited narcissistic, histrionic and borderline personality traits including grandiosity, positive impression management, exaggerated behaviours, and reckless, irritable and impulsive actions. Negative symptoms included signs of guardedness, and a tendency to hold grudges against certain staff.
[20]. Although he was co-operative with unit rules and enjoyed various recreational activities within the Hospital, there was a significant period of time from June 12 to December 11, 2024, where Mr. Nafziger declined to accept treatment with psychiatric medication. He challenged his finding of incapacity to the Consent and Capacity Board and on October 2, 2024, the finding was upheld. Mr. Nafziger’s mother agreed to assume the role of substitute decision maker for psychiatric treatment. For several months, Mr. Nafziger continued to be fixated on his capacity ruling, trying to appeal it and attempting to have Dr. Prakash replaced by a different psychiatrist. Over time, Mr. Nafziger became more amenable to treatment with psychiatric medication and took his first dose on December 11, 2024.
Substance Use History:
[21]. Mr. Nafziger has a lengthy history of substance use from an early age, in particular a long-standing and problematic use of alcohol, stimulants, cannabis, crack cocaine and crystal methamphetamine. He periodically participated in community-based abstinence support programs beginning in 2008, including a number of residential treatment programs, one of which was an intensive 12-month residential treatment program completed in early 2022.
“Mr. Nafziger reported that he experienced a period of sobriety lasting 14 months, starting in February 2022. However, a lapse led to heavy substance use during his charges. After his release from jail around September 2023, Mr. Nafziger…began using many substances. This period was marked by heavy use of crack, cocaine, cannabis, and alcohol. The stress and lack of structure following his release contributed to a significant increase in his substance use, and he found it challenging to maintain sobriety…During this time, he experienced symptoms of mental illness, including delusions and paranoia, which exacerbated his substance use and made it difficult to function in daily life.”
Position of the Parties:
[22]. Counsel for the Hospital, the Attorney General and Mr. Nafziger advised that this was a joint submission in that all parties were adopting the Hospital’s recommendation that Mr. Nafziger be found to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a Detention Order subject to certain terms and conditions, as set out at pp 53-56 of the Hospital Report and amended during the hearing with the addition of the words “excluding the City of Stratford” to each pass.
[23]. Counsel for the Attorney General indicated that her only concern was to address the victim’s safety concerns by not permitting Mr. Nafziger to enter the City of Stratford.
[24]. For the purposes of this hearing, counsel for Mr. Nafziger advised that significant threat was not in dispute and that his client was in agreement with the disposition proposed by the Hospital, including the amendment noted above. Counsel indicated that Mr. Nafziger agreed that he would not pass through Stratford when travelling to Sauble Beach to visit his mother.
Evidence at the Hearing:
[25]. The Board had available to it the documents forming the Record, the Exhibits as well as oral evidence from Dr. Ajay Prakash. The doctor indicated that he is not currently Mr. Nafziger’s attending psychiatrist, but that he was providing evidence on behalf of the Hospital because Mr. Nafziger’s attending psychiatrist, Dr. Mokhber, was unable to attend the hearing. Dr. Prakash adopted the contents of the Hospital Report following which he provided an overview of Mr. Nafziger’s current clinical status, level of risk and the rationale for the Hospital’s recommendations as to the disposition and its terms.
[26]. Dr. Prakash indicated that he was familiar with Mr. Nafziger as he had completed Mr. Nafziger’s initial NCR assessment. Dr. Prakash spoke with Mr. Nafziger on January 26, 2026, as well as earlier on the day of the hearing.
[27]. Mr. Nafziger has made tremendous progress over the reporting period. He transferred to the treatment unit on March 4, 2025; and to the rehabilitation unit on October 23, 2025. This progress is described on pages 41-42 of the Hospital Report:
While accessing care on the Forensic Assessment Unit (A3), Mr. Nafziger accepted treatment with psychiatric medication on December 11, 2024, after declining medication for the previous six months. Following his uptake with psychiatric medication, he responded quickly in a positive way. His symptoms of mania (and some irritability) resolved, and his mood became stable. He was then able to engage in various recreational and program activities, further enhancing his recovery. He was transferred to the Forensic Treatment Unit (B2) shortly thereafter.
While on the Forensic Treatment Unit (B2), Mr. Nafziger did not demonstrate any positive symptoms of his mental illness. When he initially transferred to the Treatment unit he was seclusive to his room with little engagement towards others, which is generally normal for patients transitioning to a new unit. He was quick to initiate programming and engage in recreational activities. With that came increased socialization. His mood was reported as consistently stable. He continued to follow unit guidelines and expectations without issue. There were no concerns noted with sleep, appetite or attendance to his activities of daily living. His concentration, attention and memory were all noted to be within normal limits.
While on the Treatment Unit (B2), his primary stressor involved understanding and adjusting to his diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder; he has since developed greater understanding and insight overall. He also maintained a healthy routine while accessing care in hospital, attending recreational and psychoeducational programs, and taking part in volunteer opportunities. He was described as seizing advantage of learning from others when given the opportunity. For instance, he attended information sessions to learn more about supports offered in hospital (e.g., psychology, the patient advocate, and others). He completed the four-week Forensic Facts program, which helped build his understanding and insight into the Forensic system and his own mental health. He also successfully completed the 18-week DBT psychotherapeutic group programming this reporting period.
Notably, Mr. Nafziger became involved with the Southwest Centre’s Patient Council, now named the Navigation Empowerment Council (NEC). Mr. Nafziger began his involvement in March 2025 and is now the Co-Chair of the council since its official inception in May 2025. In this role, he has led various events alongside other staff-led committees, such as the Justice Equity Diversity and Inclusion (JEDI) committee, including a Black History Month Event, Pride event, “Breaking Barriers Talent Show”, an Orange Shirt Day event and Halloween event. In addition, Mr. Nafziger spearheaded and contributed to other initiatives that involve integrating his voice into healthcare, such as reviewing policies, developing policy submissions, facilitating educational presentations for staff and peers, meeting with leadership, and other advocacy efforts. As Co-Chair of the Navigation Empowerment Council, he demonstrated strong leadership skills, progressive recovery and has been considered a positive role model for others accessing care, demonstrating that being in hospital for mental health care can offer stability, support, and opportunities for growth and recovery.
With Mr. Nafziger’s developed insight and ongoing program participation, inpatient staff on the Treatment unit (B2) allowed him to begin accessing the community independently. He accessed the community for personal and recreation purposes as well as social opportunities (movies, dinner, community walks, driving range). Staff gradually supported him with internet and computer use, with no concerns reported. After much success and positive assessment during his community passes and time on the B2 unit, he was then transferred to the Forensic Rehabilitation Unit (B1) on October 23, 2025. Of note, reports from B1 stated that he has been positively paralleling his level of engagement in the community since his transfer.
[28]. Mr. Nafziger’s insight across all spheres has improved. Mr. Nafziger is capable to make decisions related to his treatment. His capacity was restored this reporting period (June 23, 2025). He is currently engaged in ongoing bi-weekly psychotherapeutic sessions with inpatient psychology for trauma-informed interventions for relapse prevention and self-improvement. He meets with a Canadian Mental Health worker for addiction support weekly. He has also been volunteering at the hospital library and completed and continues to partake in various psychotherapeutic groups sessions.
[29]. Mr. Nafziger attends Alcohol Anonymous meetings in hospital twice weekly and continues to have one-on-one appointments with a Canadian Mental Health Addictions Worker weekly. On November 25, 2025, he started a 10-week Relapse Prevention Program through the Canadian Mental Health Association Addictions Services. He continued to deny any cravings of substances or gambling throughout the reporting period. He is scheduled to begin a 19-day residential treatment program at Westover on February 9, 2026.
[30]. Mr. Nafziger currently enjoys level 6 and level 7 privileges, which permit him to access the Hospital and grounds indirectly supervised all day, and to access the community indirectly supervised two days per week. Mr. Nafziger makes regular use of these privileges and uses them appropriately.
[31]. Dr. Prakash stated that Mr. Nafziger has made progress because the main risk factors which led to the index offence are being addressed. The doctor identified these risk factors as Mr. Nafziger’s mental status (including major mental illness, trauma etc.) and his substance use. This progress underlies the Hospital’s recommendations for increased community integration through expanded passes and a community living clause.
[32]. Nevertheless, Dr. Prakash emphasized that the stability of Mr. Nafziger’s progress with respect to both main risk factors has not yet been assessed in the community.
[33]. Medications have not yet been optimized. As early as a week before the hearing the dose of long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication was reduced, and oral medication added, to permit a small reduction in overall dose to combat excessive sleepiness. The impact of this change has yet to be assessed.
[34]. Mr. Nafziger has not yet completed a residential treatment program, although this is planned to happen in the near future.
[35]. In Dr. Prakash’s opinion, the upcoming year will be an important period of assessing whether Mr. Nafziger can maintain mental stability and abstinence from substances as his access to the community increases.
[36]. When asked whether it was likely that Mr. Nafziger would be living in the community and ready for a conditional discharge at the end of the upcoming reporting period, Dr. Prakash indicated that he would only say that it is “possible” after suitable housing has been found, and after Mr. Nafziger has demonstrated mental stability and abstinence while living in the community.
[37]. When asked whether the Disposition should restrict approved accommodation to “supervised” approved accommodation, Dr. Prakash indicated that he would not be opposed to the restriction, although this restriction is not required from the Hospital’s perspective. The Treatment Team is “leaning” towards placing Mr. Nafziger in supervised accommodation e.g. Indwell. Dr. Prakash indicated that the Hospital plans to take a cautious approach because Mr. Nafziger’s mental stability has not yet been assessed in the community. In his opinion it is not likely that the first community placement will be in unsupervised accommodation.
[38]. In closing submissions, all parties maintained a joint recommendation, with support for including “supervised accommodation” in the Disposition ranging from “not opposed” by counsel for the Hospital, to “supported” by counsel for the Attorney-General. Counsel for Mr. Nafziger indicated ambivalence with respect to its inclusion.
Analysis and Conclusions:
[39]. Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence, as well as submissions from the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Nafziger continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. Although the Board was presented with a joint position of the parties on this point, the Board has no difficulty reaching an independent conclusion to the same effect. In this regard, the Board relies on the uncontroverted expert evidence of Dr. Prakash, in addition to the documentary evidence before it and in particular, the following excerpts from the Risk Assessment contained in the Hospital Report, which summarize the essence of Mr. Nafziger’s history and Dr. Prakash’s testimony:
Mr. Nafziger has yet to be assessed in the community with reduced supervision. He has done well in a highly structured environment, but he has decompensated in the past when living unsupervised and met with expected increased stress and demands. In a decompensated state, he would demonstrate escalating behavioural dysregulation marked by harassment, non-compliance and threatening statements;
Aside from his current inpatient team, Mr. Nafziger has no personal or professional support that is considered sufficient in managing his current risk of reoffence. He would not be able to obtain professional supports independently and in a timely manner due to current resource shortages impacting the health care system;
Mr. Nafziger has a history of problems with compliance and following orders. Some level of supervision is recommended as he transitions into the community to help maintain his stability and adherence to expectations; and
Mr. Nafziger has a history of substance use which has led to decompensation and violence. He is awaiting residential treatment, and it is imperative that his current inpatient team supports him throughout this process (intake and discharge). In addition, his risk of relapse in a less supervised setting has yet to be assessed.
[40]. The Board notes that Mr. Nafziger has attended residential treatment programs in the past, but has not successfully maintained abstinence following engagement in those programs. While the Board is hopeful that Mr. Nafziger will successfully maintain abstinence in the future, the risk of relapse is real as Mr. Nafziger’s access to the community is increased.
[41]. Furthermore, the Board adopts, in its entirety, the Re-Offence Scenario set out at page 51 of the Hospital Report:
Absent Forensic support and supervision, Mr. Nafziger would have difficulty navigating and obtaining mental health supports, specifically a psychiatrist, and his own living arrangements independently. When met with high demand and increased stress, these factors have typically exacerbated his mental health symptoms. He would likely cope by using substances as his personal supports and other protective factors are deemed insufficient to mitigate risk. With increased instability, his psychotic symptoms would likely re-emerge, increasing his risk of violence.
[42]. In short, while Mr. Nafziger has made encouraging progress over the past reporting period, it is still “early days” as the treatment team prepares to increase his integration into the community and assess his continued mental stability and abstinence from substances.
[43]. Mr. Nafziger’s protective factors have had a positive impact on his risk assessment, compared to last year. Those protective factors are set out on page 50 of the Hospital Report.
[44]. The Board notes that the results from the integrated risk assessment conducted at the Hospital suggest that Mr. Nafziger currently presents a low risk of violent re-offending over the next 12 months while in hospital. When considering community living with reduced supervision (community mental health supports) his risk would be moderate to high.
[45]. The Board agrees that Mr. Nafziger’s risk to the safety of the public should be managed by the terms and conditions of a detention disposition. No less intrusive or onerous disposition, such as a conditional discharge, would be appropriate and it is to Mr. Nafziger's great credit that he recognizes this, as evidenced by his position at the hearing.
[46]. Despite his progress over the past year, it is still early days in the course of Mr. Nafziger’s recovery, and it is important that he be gradually assessed in a less supervised environment once optimally treated.
[47]. It will be critical to Mr. Nafziger’s ongoing stability in the community that the Hospital be able to approve his accommodations to ensure an adequate level of support and supervision and be able to bring him back to hospital, expediently, in the event of his decompensation.
[48]. The expansion of passes to Southwestern Ontario is intended to permit Mr. Nafziger to visit his mother in Sauble Beach. The passes are designed to increase Mr. Nafziger’s access to the community in a gradual and stepwise fashion. The Board finds that these passes promote the integration of Mr. Nafziger in the community, and are predicated on the progress demonstrated by Mr. Nafziger this year.
[49]. Dr. Prakash’s evidence that Mr. Nafziger may possibly be ready for community living this year necessitates the inclusion of a community living clause to facilitate placement of Mr. Nafziger on the appropriate waitlists, once the OT assessments have been completed and the Hospital has identified appropriate accommodations. The inclusion of this clause also represents the least onerous and least restrictive Disposition.
[50]. The Board notes that the inclusion of a community living clause does not guarantee that Mr. Nafziger will be living in the community during the upcoming reporting period. It indicates that community living has become a possibility within the foreseeable future.
[51]. The nature of the index offences, along with the history, informs the need to protect the victim from further trauma. For this reason, Mr. Nafziger’s community passes exclude access to Stratford, and his community living clause is restricted to Elgin-Middlesex. He will not be permitted to live in Huron-Perth under this Disposition.
[52]. The Board carefully considered whether the community living clause should restrict the approved accommodation to “supervised” accommodation. The Board noted that the parties, while supportive and not strongly opposed, did not consider this restriction to be necessary.
[53]. The Board accepts that the Hospital will be unlikely to place Mr. Nafziger in unsupervised accommodation, given the risk factors outlined in the Hospital Report (as noted above). Dr. Prakash confirmed this in his oral testimony. Upon balancing the needs of the safety of the public, and the reality that flexibility in obtaining suitable accommodation may be unnecessarily limited by the inclusion of this restriction, the Board declined to include “supervised” accommodation.
[54]. The no contact clauses, as pertaining to the victim and Mr. Nafziger’s son, remain essential, for the reasons set out by the Board in last year’s Reasons. The Board notes that according to Dr. Prakash, Mr. Nafziger has not attempted to contact the victim or their son, although he has had supervised access to the internet. Counsel for Mr. Nafziger indicated that Mr. Nafziger is growing in his awareness of the impact of his actions on his son, and that he is remorseful. Mr. Nafziger accepts that reconciliation will be a (very) long-term goal.
[55]. The Board continues to believe that the nature and quality of Mr. Nafziger's risk to the safety of the public and in particular the safety of the victim and their child necessitates that his disposition include a weapon prohibition clause.
[56]. Mr. Nafziger’s substance abuse disorder informs the need for abstention and monitoring. The residential treatment clause continues to be necessary.
[57]. In making this disposition, the Board has considered the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code which are the safety of the public, being the paramount consideration, the mental condition of the accused, the reintegration of the accused into society and the other needs of the accused.
DATED this 19th day of February 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
K. Tomaszewski Legal Member Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board